Allowed

Paresh Vasantlal Shah v. Premila Bharat Shah and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC24 Apr 2023IA/1274/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay placed a testamentary dispute panel application to condone a 44-day delay in filing an affidavit supporting a caveat. The court permitted said delay while clarifying that this relief does not confirm the caveat's truth. The court Finally allowed the applicant. One week extension was also granted for e-filing.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 44 days condoned. Time granted to e-file affidavit by May 2nd, 2023. Testamentary petition converted to suit.

Paresh Vasantlal Shah Vs Premila Bharat Shah and 3… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Digitally signed LAXMIKANT by LAXMIKANT GOPAL GOPAL CHANDAN CHANDAN Date: 2023.04.26 11:39:31 +0530

¶2

1 (15) IA-1274.23.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1274 OF 2023

¶5

¶6

CAVEAT (L) NO.36711 OF 2022 IN PETITION NO.2055 OF 2022

¶7

Paresh Vasantlal Shah : Applicant/Caveator No.1 In the matter between Premila Bharat Shah and anr. : Petitioners versus Paresh Vasantlal Shah and ors. : Caveators.

¶8

Mr. Bhavin Gada a/w Mr. Sumeet Bhansod i/by Law Loyals for the Applicant. Ms. Anjana Modhave for the Petitioner in Petition No.2055 of 2022.

¶9

CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. DATE : 24th APRIL 2023

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

The present Interim Application has been filed by the Applicant/Caveator No.1 for condonation of delay of 44 days in filing the Affidavit in support of Applicant’s caveat.

¶12

Ms. Modhave, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, does not, in

¶13

1 of 3

¶14

LGC

¶15

2 (15) IA-1274.23.doc

¶16

fairness, oppose the present Interim Application for condonation of delay, however, she submits that the contentions stated in the Affidavit in support of the Caveat are false. Naturally this is a question that will have to be determined in the course of hearing of what will be now called converted Testamentary Suit.

¶17

In view thereof, by allowing the present Interim Application it can by no stretch of imagination be said to mean that the Petitioner has accepted the contentions stated in the Affidavit in support of the caveat. Mere condonation of delay does not in any manner mean that what is stated in the Affidavit in support of the Caveat is true.

¶18

With the aforesaid observations, the present Interim Application is

¶19

allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus :-

¶20

“(a) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to condone the delay of 44 days in filing of the Affidavit dated 12^th January 2023 in support of the Applicant’s/Caveator No.1 caveat to the above Petition and to take the same on record thereof.”

¶21

Office to convert the Testamentary Petition into Testamentary Suit

¶22

in accordance with law.

¶23

2 of 3

¶24

LGC

¶25

3 (15) IA-1274.23.doc

¶26

Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that he will file the Affidavit in support of caveat by e-filing and that process may take some time, and therefore, he requests one week’s time for the same. Time as prayed for is granted. Affidavit to be filed by e-filing on or before 2nd May 2023.

¶27

The present Interim Application is accordingly disposed of.

¶28

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)

¶29

3 of 3

¶30

LGC

Paresh Vasantlal Shah v. Premila Bharat Shah and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paresh Vasantlal Shah v. Premila Bharat Shah and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrashekhar Yeshwant Mayekar Vs Anant Hari Khadpe (Deceased)

Hemant Shantilal Gandhi Vs Surajben Shantilal Gandhi - Deceased

Netra Jayanth Nairi Vs Viraj Madhusudan Karnik

Maulik Dhiraj Chheda Vs Premila Bharat Shah and 3 Ors.

Bansri Jay Dedhia Vs Premila Bharat Shah and 3 Ors.

Anjali Guha W/O Ranjit Kumar Guha Vs Chandan Guha S/O Ranjit Kumar Guha (Deceased)